United Nations Development Programme (Undp)
overview of organisation ratingsThe United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is a central and major player in the development work of the United Nations system. As a global organisation, UNDP received about US$5.3 billion in 2010 (close to US$1 billion in core, un-earmarked, funding and US$4.3 billion in non-core, earmarked, contributions) which it spends mainly on programs, activities and technical assistance, delivered through 129 country 0ffices covering 177 countries and territories.
As outlined in its strategic plan 2008–13, UNDP’s mandate focuses on four key pillars:
poverty reduction and achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
democratic governance
crisis prevention and recovery, and
environment and sustainable development.
Crosscutting issues such as gender equality and women’s empowerment and capacity building are addressed in the context of the four key pillars.
UNDP has a major role in enhancing the UN system’s collective development impact by coordinating and driving more effective cooperation between UN development agencies. The UNDP Administrator chairs the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), which seeks to improve the coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of the UN’s development efforts.
UNDP funds and manages the UN’s resident coordinators responsible for leading the UN’s efforts in more than 130 countries. UNDP also administers many multi-donor and special purpose trust funds.
UNDP is governed by an executive board of 36 member states of the United Nations, most of whom serve on a rotational three-year basis (Western European and Others Group operates its own system of representation on the Board). Board meetings are held three times a year. The Administrator, Helen Clark, is an Under Secretary-General (USG) reporting to the UNDP executive board.
In December 2008, Australia signed a partnership framework with UNDP. The framework sets out shared objectives and outlines Australia’s core funding commitment to UNDP totalling $68.3 million, increasing from $12.5 million in 2008 to $23.3 million in 2011. The shared objectives are:
to work together to assist developing countries to achieve the MDGs
to ensure effective delivery of aid programs at country-level (in line with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action)
to actively support the reform of the UN development system and within UNDP, and
to build public awareness of the outcomes of the partnership.
In 2010–11 Australia provided $98.9 million to UNDP, including $18.3 million in voluntary core contributions and $80.7 million in non-core funding.
1. Delivering results on poverty and sustainable development in line with mandate / satisfactory
Overall, UNDP has a satisfactory record of delivering results with a key strength being UNDP’s strong focus on poverty reduction in low income countries. However, performance remains variable across countries and themes, in part due to its broad mandate and differing human resources expertise in-country. Further strengthening of its results framework, a key focus of the UNDP Administrator’s reform program, will provide a sound basis for improved collection and communication of results in future.
UNDP can point to an array of program-level successes, such as supporting democratic elections in a range of countries, including fragile states. Nevertheless evidence from Australian Multilateral Assessment field visits to Bangladesh and Indonesia, as well as country-level feedback, indicates that in some countries results fall substantially short of reasonable expectations. In Indonesia, for example, most stakeholders saw UNDP as spreading its resources too thinly across a large number of small or pilot interventions.
UNDP has used a results-based management system since the 1990s. This was strengthened recently after independent reviews in 2008 and 2009 found weaknesses in both the system and its application. UNDP is also developing a new results framework under its strategic plan 2014–17, but it is too early to judge how effective these changes will be in improving the allocation of program funds and facilitating better reporting on aggregate results.
UNDP focuses on the poorest through its own programs and its analytical work. Many of its knowledge products, such as its Human Development Index and its Poverty and Social Impact Analysis provide all development stakeholders with tools to target those most in need.
UNDP plays a lead role within the UN to help countries identify constraints to meeting the MDGs and to mobilise increased attention to the areas they targeted.
Overall, UNDP’s record on demonstrating results is satisfactory but rather uneven. It has potential to improve under the Administrator’s reform program which aims to deliver a more relevant, efficient and effective organisation.
UNDP reports annually to its executive board on progress against its strategic plan. This covers broad achievements at country-level and progress on institutional objectives.
UNDP’s current reporting (both to the board and more generally) identifies a range of development and humanitarian results consistent with mandate. The reports also usually highlight contributions to broader development outcomes.
At country-level and for thematic programs, delivery of results is also reported through the assessment of development results and other evaluations. A challenge for future strategic plans will be to strengthen UNDP’s identification of development outputs and outcomes.
The available evidence suggests that delivery of results on the ground varies significantly across countries and thematic areas. In the Pacific, UNDP has made important contributions to meet development challenges, with good progress on mainstreaming and internalising MDGs in planning and budgets, and substantial progress in partner government recognition of poverty as a pressing development issue (through policy and analytical research). However, feedback from Australian overseas missions in the Pacific suggests that UNDP’s activities vary widely in terms of development effectiveness, across countries, by area of focus, by level of national preparedness, by size, and by degree of partnership with stakeholders. In Bangladesh, results are falling short of Australia’s expectations. In Indonesia, most stakeholders saw UNDP as spreading its resources too thinly across a large number of small or pilot interventions.
The 2009 Multilateral Organization Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) assessment found that views on UNDP’s results varied, with direct partners (that is, developing country governments) rating them strongly, but donors expressed concern about UNDP’s capacity to ensure the application of results-based management and linkages between its strategy and organisational mandate. Donors also expressed reservations about UNDP’s institutional culture for supporting a focus on results. In recognition of these issues, a key part of the Administrator’s reform program will involve strengthening UNDP’s results framework.
UNDP’s role in improving aid effectiveness through results monitoring has been strengthened in recent times but there is scope for further improvement.
UNDP has used a results-based management system since the 1990s. This system was strengthened recently after independent reviews in 2008 and 2009 found weaknesses in the system and its application. UNDP is in the process of developing a more robust results framework, yet it is too early to determine the extent to which current weaknesses will be overcome.
UNDP recognises the need to improve its efforts in this area. Under the Administrator’s reform program significant work will go into strengthening results frameworks and reporting. This work is already underway with UNDP currently developing a new results framework as part of its new strategic plan 2014–17.
UNDP’s programs have a very strong focus on poverty reduction in low income countries, taking into account human development indicators. Many of UNDP’s knowledge products, such as its Human Development Index and its Poverty and Social Impact Analysis provide development stakeholders with tools to target those most in need.
UNDP also plays a lead role within the United Nations to assist countries to identify constraints to meeting the MDGs and to mobilise increased attention to these areas, for example through the MDG acceleration framework.
UNDP’s Administrator is a strong advocate for the MDGs, encouraging UN agencies (and others) to remain focused on them.
UNDP’s work on crisis prevention and recovery, including disaster risk reduction, is highly relevant to its performance on this criterion. Steps were taken recently to transform UNDP’s Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery, which is the bureau that consolidates UNDP’s crisis prevention and recovery knowledge and experience, to enable it to respond better and more strategically to demands for its services. Early signs on the impact of these changes are promising.
UNDP’s policies and programs align well with all five of the strategic goals of the Australian aid program. UNDP’s global reach is an asset in countries where it is not feasible or practical for Australia to operate. UNDP’s key role within the UN system also supports Australia’s broader interests in a strong and effective UN.
UNDP has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by Australia at headquarters level, and feedback from Australian overseas missions is generally positive about its responsiveness at country-level.
UNDP has a leadership role in ensuring crosscutting issues are addressed in its own policies and programs, as well as promoting integration across the UN development system.
It has clear policies on crosscutting issues and UNDP applies them well in its programs. A sound gender policy is credibly applied and there is a strong record on environmentally sustainable development (notably through its work with the Global Environment Facility). UNDP continues to play a leading role in ensuring a disability inclusive approach to development.
UNDP is an international leader—and a strong partner for Australia—in crisis prevention and recovery. However, its performance in fragile states is uneven. Feedback from Australian overseas missions, including in Pacific Island countries, suggests UNDP does not always effectively adjust its programs to the challenges of fragile states. Steps were recently taken to improve the effectiveness of UNDP’s Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery, which consolidates UNDP’s knowledge and experience in this area, and early signs of these changes are encouraging.
Globally, UNDP’s policy and program focus on poverty reduction and the MDGs, democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery, environmentally sustainable development, empowering women, and capacity building is closely attuned to Australia’s global development objectives.
UNDP’s key role within the United Nations system supports Australia’s broader interests in a strong and effective UN. UNDP’s central role in promoting broader UN reform, particularly in improving coordination among UN development agencies, is strongly supported by Australia.
UNDP’s programs have a broad geographic and thematic scope. This helps Australia to promote development in countries or with specific types programs that cannot feasibly or practically be delivered through bilateral programs.
UNDP has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by Australia at headquarters level, including on such issues as helping to build awareness of the impact of the AusAID–UNDP partnership framework. UNDP has contributed helpfully to the G20 Development Working Group’s work on social protection.
UNDP’s policies and programs align very well with all five of the strategic goals of the Australian aid program.
The best evidence of alignment with Australia’s aid priorities is the AusAID-UNDP partnership framework. This identifies four shared objectives:
to work together to assist developing countries to achieve the MDGs
to ensure effective delivery of aid programs at country-level (in line with the Paris principles and the Accra agenda)
to actively support the reform of the UN development system and within UNDP, and
to build public awareness of the outcomes of the partnership.
Australia also has a partnership with UNDP’s Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery which is an important component of the Australian Government’s engagement on peacebuilding and recovery efforts within the UN system.
UNDP has a leadership role in ensuring crosscutting issues are addressed in its own policies and programs, as well as to promote their integration across the UN development system.
UNDP’s performance on gender issues is credible, with evident progress over the last five years to promote and integrate gender equality and women’s empowerment. The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development’s (DFID) gender benchmarking exercise (2010) noted strong leadership and incentive mechanisms, with successful delivery depending on UNDP’s ability to build capacity across the organisation, although gender disaggregation of data required further support and attention. UNDP’s focus on gender equality at country-level was rated highly in the 2009 MOPAN report.
UNDP’s record on promoting environmentally sustainable development is considerable, based, inter alia, on its long-standing work on disaster risk reduction and its role in the Global Environment Facility. Some 40 per cent of its resources are implemented through UNDP.
Both gender and environment are increasingly significant in the investment decisions of developing countries, in part as the result of work by UNDP (and others such as the World Bank). For example, UNDP recently issued guidelines on the climate proofing of infrastructure.
UNDP has developed new guidelines on disability (which complement the UN country team guidelines). It will host a new multi-donor trust fund to support persons with disabilities.
At country-level, UNDP has supported useful work on disability-inclusive development. In Cambodia, for example, UNDP funded an excellent study on the political participation of women with disabilities, although implementation of its recommendations has been constrained by lack of resources.
UNDP supports countries to mainstream and integrate anti-corruption into national development processes in an inclusive and participatory manner, with particular regard to issues affecting women and girls and other marginalised groups. UNDP is working to combat corruption in sectoral areas to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs.
As part of this focus, UNDP has developed and launched tools and methodologies to combat corruption in the education, water and health sectors. It is also working to improve anti-corruption programming at the national and sub national-levels so that the access and quality of services in education, water and health sectors is increased.
UNDP’s performance in fragile states is uneven. Crisis prevention and recovery work being undertaken by its Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery is highly relevant and, on the whole, of reasonable quality. UNDP has developed and applies specific policies and procedures for operating in fragile contexts. However, feedback from Australian overseas missions, including in Pacific Island countries, suggests UNDP does not always effectively adjust its programs to the particular challenges of fragile states. As mentioned previously, UNDP has recently transformed the Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery to better target its services to country needs.
Australia’s 2009 Political Governance Review raised concerns about the relevance, effectiveness and value for money of some of UNDP’s democratic governance work in fragile contexts in the Pacific.
UNDP plays a useful role in promoting UN coordination at country-level. It hosts and coordinates many Multi-Donor Trust Funds, and manages the UN Resident Coordinator system. In some countries it provides technical assistance to the aid coordination authority.
UNDP has a fair delivery record on its normative functions and has contributed greatly to development knowledge. Its annual human development report (and index) is an important knowledge and policy tool used by a wide range of development agencies and practitioners across the world. Some of the specialist expertise it provides has made a positive difference to development outcomes.
UNDP has a record of working in cutting-edge areas or tackling difficult policy or program issues. Examples include its work on crisis prevention and recovery; on democratic governance; and in challenging countries such as North Korea.
UNDP is at the heart of United Nations development coordination. The UNDP Administrator chairs the UN Development Group. UNDP provides UN resident coordinators in 130 countries and chairs aid round tables for some least developed countries. It also manages a number of multi-donor trust funds on behalf of the UN system. In some countries it provides technical assistance to the aid coordination authority.
At headquarters level, the UNDP Administrator is committed to driving greater coordination in the UN development system. UNDP has helped to drive a range of institutional reforms which are gradually improving operations and attitudes of UN agencies towards UN-wide coordination. Its management of the resident coordinator system plays a central role in supporting the Delivering as One initiative, which improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the United Nations system by improving coordination of UN agencies in-country.
There is mixed evidence of the success of UNDP and the broader UN system in implementing these reforms and changing behaviour at country-level. The 2009 MOPAN report noted that ‘donors at country-level view this as an area where the UNDP could do better, whereas for partners, harmonisation is an area of strength.’
Through these roles there may be scope for UNDP to exert greater leadership on coordination in some countries. Delivering as One has shown substantial improvements in the design of UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAF). But there is less evidence that these frameworks are driving better prioritisation, more strategic engagement with stakeholders and higher levels of joint programming and delivery. One Australian overseas mission stated: ‘The reality is the UN community has a long way to go achieving a real one-UN approach ... UNDP has a significant role to play which it has not lived up to’.